From the Daily Skeptic
Last week, Britain took two new steps to clear its industrial wealth-creating capacity. On Thursday, Petroineos confirmed plans to close its Grangemouth refinery. Then, after years of wrangling, the High Court ruled on Friday that Whitehaven Colliery could not go ahead. The latter is not just an oversight by the net-zero fanatics who run the country, who seem more interested in Ibiza’s wind farms and clubs than its oil refineries; it’s another expression of green resentment.
The Whitehaven coal mine scheme has long been the subject of green laws. The hearing came to a conclusion after the new government, led by Angela Renner, decided not to continue the previous government's commitment to the program. Although this project to produce coal for steel production has the backing of a region that needs jobs, the backing of private investors willing to provide, domestic and international markets, and most controversially, the support of the government, it is Green Blob Funding Opposition groups and legal challenges to planning decisions have taken control away from democratically elected politicians in a series of hearings. According to Judge Holgate, the scheme was incompatible with the Climate Change Act 2008 (CCA). guardian. This echoes the point made by Peter Lilley when the legislation was debated in Parliament (in effect) that “the only effect of enshrining objectives in statute will be that government policy will be subject to judicial review”.
“The idea that judges should decide on policies that cost billions of pounds without being accountable to voters for the billions of pounds they might decide needs to be spent fills me with foreboding,” Lilley said.
But Blob-funded laws are now only half the story. The other half is now economically strangled.
Petroineos' statement cited an expected fall in demand for fossil fuels in the UK, higher energy costs in the UK compared with overseas and more modern plants as reasons for the closure. Scottish Secretary Ian Murray told STV the decision had nothing to do with net zero organisations. But that seems unlikely, as Petroineos CEO Frank Damey also told STV that “the energy transition is happening now and it's happening here” and that “with a ban on new petrol and diesel cars set to come into effect within the next decade , we expect the market for these fuels to shrink further”. This reflects earlier comments by INEOS founder Jim Ratcliffe that chemical manufacturing in the UK and Europe has been devastated by high energy prices.
Meanwhile, Ed Miliband shared his crocodile tears on Twitter, claiming it was “deeply disappointing that Petroineos has confirmed its previous decision to close the Grangemouth refinery”. But he made clear Labor intended to destroy the North Sea oil and gas industry through punitive taxes and a pledge not to issue new exploration licenses. This hostility to oil and gas production has obvious consequences for places like Grangemouth, but could ultimately be a bigger blow to UK industry. While the loss of the refinery resulted in 400 job losses, there are concerns that the government's ecological virtue signaling – of unknown origin – poses a risk to 200,000 jobs in the industry. On Monday, the BBC reported that the TUC, Unite and GMB had all expressed concerns, although some unions reportedly claimed there were “no jobs on a dead planet”.
This absurdly contrived and utterly uninteresting rebuttal of jobs, industry and economic concerns highlights the shift in the wider Labor movement from representation of the industrial working class to performative middle-class public sector virtue signaling. This could signal extremely serious tensions within the Labor Party over net zero policy, the likes of which have never been seen before. As Unite executive committee member Cliff Bowen told the BBC, the green agenda was advanced through “false promises of green jobs that never seemed to materialize”.
These problems in Grangemouth will be alleviated through a £100 million Government grant. Similar negotiations are underway in Port Talbot, involving a £500 million subsidy, conditional on a £750 million investment from Tata. But the value of such subsidies is modest per job: £250,000 per job in Grangemouth and £200,000 in Port Talbot. No government can maintain this level of palliative care for an industry that Miliband clearly intends to euthanasia. At this rate, it will cost around £50 billion to support the oil and gas industry. The soft-handed, soft-minded faction of the Labor Party will find itself on the wrong side of an industrial dispute without blaming the Conservative government or Mrs Thatcher.
This tension cannot be resolved with terse remarks like “There are no jobs on a dead planet” because unemployment is a real, immediate and serious problem than climate change (aka slightly different weather). Bowen’s warning about the false promises of “green jobs” should prompt deeper reflection on the consequences of unchecked green ideology impacting the UK economy. Note that while Lilly's predictions have come true, the “green jobs” (and therefore “green growth” and “green industrial revolution”) promises made by supporters of the Climate Change Bill have not yet been realized and cannot be legally enforced .
The Green Agenda was sold to us through a false prospectus. As I pointed out last week, the viciousness with which it advances is epitomized by the way it leaves pensioners enduring the winter chill. Can we take seriously Ed Miliband's claim after the Grangemouth news that “this is a government that stands with workers, unions and businesses for jobs and investment”? Even if he is serious, does he or the Labor government know how to reconcile the apparent contradiction between a commitment to green ideology and the interests of working people? I highly doubt this, given the apparent lack of thinking ability on the part of Miliband and his cronies.
Relevant
